which cpu is best suited for me

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

ivanpetrovfranku

Apr 17, 2018
8
0
10
Hello, first thread here. I have been using and old fx-6300 with r9 270x for the last 4 years and im going to upgrade my build in a month or less and im not sure which cpu i should get.
i will mostly do gaming, watch youtube, facebook etc... also have a second monitor, main one is 1080 res and the one that i will play games on, so the question is which gpu and cpu i should get and im thinking one of the following
CPU:
ryzen 5 1600/5 1600x with x370 and 16gb ddr4
ryzen 7 1700/7 1700x with x370 and 16gb ddr4
intel i5 8400/i5 8600k with z370 and 16gb ddr4

also is it worth spending 50 euro more for 1070ti instead of 1070

and should i first upgrade my cpu,motherboard and ram or gpu
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
vapour

vapour

Champion
Aug 28, 2017
12,398
98
57,540
Definitely CPU, dead platform. If you are going to get 1070+, I5-8400 with H/B 3xx motherboard is a good choice, 8400 has better IPC and single core is dominating factor in current games. 1070 is good for 1080p 144hz. 1070ti can oc to 1080 stock, may play in 1440p 100hz range. Is 50 worth or not is up to you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jawlesspython04

Distinguished
May 25, 2014
366
0
18,960
As you will not be doing tasks live Streaming, video editing, photo editing etc, Go for the i5 8400. It can handle the 1070Ti (If you plan on going for the Ti) without any significant bottleneck. Get a B360 Motherboard with it and you are good to go. If you are playing games on 1080p then go for a 1070, if you are on 1440p then go for the 1070Ti as vapour said. Also the refresh rates matter but vapour has explained that pretty well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I

ivanpetrovfranku

Apr 17, 2018
8
0
10


is the difference between i5 8400 and i7 8700 that big and is it worth 160 euros extra for the i7 for the future proof
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jawlesspython04

Distinguished
May 25, 2014
366
0
18,960
Again, depends on your usage. The i7 has more threads than the i5 (12 threads of the i7 against 6 of the i5), Higher Clock Speed, More Cache etc. You wont be using multi threaded applications and doing tasks that can take advantage of more threads so you would not notice the difference. Go for the i5 8400. The i5 is as future proof as the i7 because of the same socket. You can just upgrade it after 4 years to the best processor on the LGA 1151 300 series socket. Both have the same upgrade path.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rissky92

Apr 7, 2018
15
0
10
Just buy a 970, 980 or 980ti instead of 1060 or 1070 if you can find it cheep! More performance for the buck! And go for ryzen, <removed> intel! Buy a ryzen 1700x maybe :p

<Language removed by moderator.>
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,739
4,559
142,790
Unless you are planning on CF, SLI or possibly Mgpu in the future, the single slot on most B360 mobo's is fine, there's really no other significant differences other than the price.

Ryzen 5 1600 has equitable IPC about in between Haswell and skylake. Add some OC to @3.8GHz (easy enough to do on stock wraith cooler) and paired with decent 3200MHz ram, that'll jump @20%, planting the Ryzen @ Kabylake IPC. Still @10% behind CoffeeLake, but for many that's a moot point, being only a few fps at max.

The difference between the i5 8400 and the Ryzen 5 1600 lies mainly in the threads. The Ryzen had hyperthreading (AMD's version) so can push 12 threads if needed. The Intel is stuck at 6. For heavy cpu loads like 64drop servers in WoW, this can be an issue, but it's an equitable issue to the older i7's having 4 cores and 4 virtual cores, putting it about 6 cores usage. Other than that, they'll perform almost the same, any differences being regulated to the particular game and how it responds to threads vrs IPC.

But one thing is for sure, amd plans on sticking around with AM4 until at least 2020, and has already released the Raven Ridge cpus, and is due to release new cpus in a few days, so with AM4 and bios updates, you could always stay with a current cpu for far less than having to replace both mobo and cpu with Intel in a few years.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I

ivanpetrovfranku

Apr 17, 2018
8
0
10


yes but im using 2 monitors and i think that will decrease the performance
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I

ivanpetrovfranku

Apr 17, 2018
8
0
10


i think i will go with the i5 option, i wont do any overclock or server hosting but in the same time i dont want to upgrade again in the next 2 to 3 years and im woried if the i5 is going to lack behind a 8 core cpu like ryzen 7 in games (triple A) and i dont know if 6 cores are enough cause my current cpu is a hexa core
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

ohiou_grad_2006

Splendid
Dec 3, 2011
3,551
10
24,115
So why go with i5 then if you're worried it will lag? I think the new ryzen chips actually launch tomorrow. You could look at something like a b350 board that gives you some nice features but would offer overclocking ability if you decided to try it. But for CPU, maybe get the 2600x which should give the higher clock speeds out of the box.

I found this article.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-5-2600-takes-on-the-Intel-Core-i5-8600K-in-first-benchmarks.299388.0.html

I think there's supposed to be an embargo until tomorrow, but this sure claims to have benchmarks and claims gaming Intel still wins but that it's mostly by single for numbers now. And supposedly that in some titles the 6 core ryzen 2000 series even competed against the i7 8700 series. Take the results with a grain of salt though until we see more.

But only being a day from launch, you might as well wait and see now what they will bring out.

Plus something like a ryzen 2600 or 2600x should be 6 core 12 threads and give you that multitasking ability.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,739
4,559
142,790
2 monitors does not affect performance in any significant capacity. I'm running 2x 1080p on a gtx660ti. You can run 4k video on 2x monitors on the igpu. You only game on the primary. So there's really no need for a 1070/ti for that reason. If, however, you were planning to move to 1440p/60Hz or 1080p/144Hz then the 1070/ti would be a far better option than a 1060.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,739
4,559
142,790
Stop thinking cores for a second. You cannot compare core-core a fx6300 to anything new. The fx had an IPC (instructions per clock) about 66% of an i5-3570. What you are looking at now with Ryzen at stock is 40% slower again, @60%slower if the Ryzen is OC and fast ram. Or about 75% slower per instruction than CoffeeLake. In simple terms, your fx6300 would need an OC of over 8GHz to keep up with CoffeeLake and almost 8GHz to equal OC Ryzens. Per core.

Back to cores. Each core has a certain bandwidth it can use, longer codestrings use more bandwidth. Hyperthreading splits the bandwidth as needed and shoves 2x threads through. Software uses threads, each thread being a codestring. Some games, especially AAA mmorpg, can use 8+ threads, some only use 2-3. For anything less than 6 threads, Intel typically beats Ryzen, but not by any significant amount, higher IPC. Once you hit 6, it can change, depending on the game engine. In some games the i5 6 core cat shove through the threads fast enough, you get fps loss, but not much. For some there's no change as threads aren't needed to be used as fast. Either way, they'll not affect Ryzen because Ryzen already has 12 thread capacity.

Will games use 12 threads? Yep, just a matter of time, same as games now use 8 when 3 years ago almost all used upto 4.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

ohiou_grad_2006

Splendid
Dec 3, 2011
3,551
10
24,115
75% shower? Dude I think your numbers are a bit off. From what I've read ryzen IPC is between haswell and Skylake. Which if memory serves, Skylake and kaby lake were almost neck and neck in terms of IPC. Biggest advantage Intel has is clock speed.

http://thetechaltar.com/ryzen-3-vs-coffee-lake-i3-per-clock-performance-comparison/2/

According to that it's probably more like 13-20%. However, some leaked benchmarks of current Ryzen CPUs vs the new ones coming out tomorrow suggest that the new CPUs are about 10% faster than ryzen 1 at the same clock speeds. Which would mean then if that is accurate, compared to the latest ryzen, coffee lake is only 5-10% ahead in IPC, and in many multithreaded workloads, will get smashed. The old FX chips you are right about for sure, but you should really look at your numbers again on IPC.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,739
4,559
142,790
Fx is @40% slower than stock Ryzen.
OC Ryzen @3.8GHz with 3200 ram is @20% better IPC than stock.
FX is @ 60% slower IPC than OC Ryzen.
OC Ryzen = @ kabylake IPC.
Kabylake is @10-15% slower IPC than CoffeeLake.
FX is @ 70-75% slower IPC than CoffeeLake.

What doesn't add up? A i5-8400 @ 70-75% faster IPC than FX6300. Per clock.

But I did mess up with the math on GHz, hit the wrong button on the Calc.
At 4.0GHz on the 8400, the FX would need to be at least 7.0GHz to match, not 8.0
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,739
4,559
142,790
Yeah, right now either Ryzen or CoffeeLake will be a huge upgrade for op, really can't go wrong with either other than spending too much money for not needed stuff, like an OC motherboard for a non OC cpu, the b360, h370 are far cheaper and will work just as well, same for the B350 vrs x370. Quite easy to save $50-$100 just on the mobo alone, which if budgeted, could put op on a better gpu, or ssd etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
O

ohiou_grad_2006

Splendid
Dec 3, 2011
3,551
10
24,115
It looks good to be honest. The reviews I saw showed the 2700x vs the i7 8700k. I think Toms had one actually.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571.html

But from what I see, yes Intel is still the gaming king. But if many of the gaming benchmarks, I'm not seeing a huge disparity. I mean some are seperated by only 3-4 fps, which is almost nothing. If you're running something like a GTX 1060 and at 1080p, more than likely you will never even notice the difference, and any money saved would be better spent on more ram, better graphics card, etc. If I recall though, they said in multithreaded workloads, ryzen basically owns that area. Read over the review and see what you think. I know another review on pcworld I think the guy said 8 of 10 times, he'd get the AMD cpu.

If memory serves, lets say you pick up a 2700x, it's like 20 dollars cheaper than an 8700k. Figure if the 8700k does not come with a cooler, what is that, another 30-40 dollars to spend for that, plus you can still go with a decent b350 board that will allow a little overclocking for less than a z370. When you take all of that into account, you could be looking at a platform cost of 60-70 dollars less for very similar performance. So something else to take into account also.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Karadjgne

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Dec 26, 2012
30,739
4,559
142,790
What most don't consider is the monitor. Intel might be King, by a hair, but realistically that's meaningless. Doesn't matter 1 bit if Intel gets 300fps and Ryzen gets 250, on the monitor you get 60/144fps. Intel could get 1000fps and Ryzen 150fps, you get 60/144 fps. The only time max fps matters 1 iota is when your pc isn't strong enough (at 60Hz, please...) to get fps over the cap. In that case, Intel or Ryzen won't matter, you are going to be underpowered anyways.

What cpu is right for you? One that's going to put minimum fps above your monitors refresh, allowing for seamless game play or in the case of 144Hz monitors, one that's strong enough to mean small differences in min/max fps according to the games you play.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

razamatraz

Honorable
Feb 12, 2014
200
0
10,710



You didn't list any prices on those platforms...or what games you play. If you're taking 1070+ though I assume modern AAA titles.

Do you have a hi refresh monitor or just 60Hz? If only 60Hx a 1070 is easily enough and a 1070Ti doesn't really future proof you any; it's only 15% faster if that.

To the processor; they are all good enough for what you listed you do. The 1700 is probably overkill if you don't edit video or do other cpu intensive stuff.

So gaming is your biggest load...that put's the 8400 probably on top in most titles, although not by much and the extra 6 threads and overclockability of the 1600 might make a difference in a year or two.

Where I am, a B350 mobo and 1600 is quite a bit cheaper than an 8400 and H370 or B360 mobo so I'd take the 1600. It's overclockable to at least 3.8 (most will go faster) and will be almost as good as an 8400 at gaming, better at cpu intensive tasks.

youtube, facebook etc. if you're just watching can be run on anything so that's not really a factor...you could run those on a turnip.

If you intend to upgrade resolution then both cpus are equal but a 1070Ti might be worthwhile. if you intend to upgrade refresh rate then the 8400 is a little better and a 1070Ti might be worthwhile. I think you'd have trouble telling the difference without a frame counter on screen though. They are so close to equal performance.

Razz

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I

ivanpetrovfranku

Apr 17, 2018
8
0
10


1st option is 510 euro
2nd option is 610 euro
3rd option is 575 euro

GTX 1070 is 500 euro and GTX1070TI is 520 euro
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom