Intel’s Core i5-8400: the new go-to gaming CPU

>Intel’s Core i5-8400: the new go-to gaming CPU
rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/12/intels-core-i5-8400-review/

>But, for us gamers, it’s all about the Core i5 8400. It's an incredibly good value chip delivering unprecedented gaming performance for the money.
pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i5-8400-review-benchmarks

>That makes the Core i5-8400 the best overall processor in the mainstream market.
pcgamer.com/intel-i5-8400-review-the-best-new-gaming-cpu-in-years/

>For now, one thing's for sure: the Core i5-8400 puts Ryzen in an awkward position when it comes to gaming and perhaps even the new Core i7 range for that matter.
techspot.com/review/1502-intel-core-i5-8400/page5.html

Is it fair to say that the 8400 is the best value CPU since the 2500K?

Other urls found in this thread:

techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K_Coffee_Lake_Memory_Performance_Benchmark_Analysis/9.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

sure

>most games people care about and actually play (not DX12/vulkan tech demos) are still 99% about raw single-threaded performance because they're shitty console ports or old
>recommend locked 6-core

I can OC my 2500k to 4.7GHz and it will beat the shit out of the 8600 at single-threaded tasks

Sure it will, buddy.

Yes, thats why a bought it
>INB4 HUUR Z BOARD
i don't care, i have a nice cpu now and a good mobo

Post your CPU-Z and Cinebench single thread scores.

Is it one guy posting this cherry picked benchmark in every thread or what?

>every 8400 bench is cherry picked

Are you retarded? That bench clearly either is cherry picked, or they did something wrong. The 8400 shouldn't be outperforming the 8700K when overclocked. The 8700K and the 8700 both have a much higher turbo boost than the 8400, also they likely paired the 8700K with a water cooler giving it enough thermal headroom. Use your brain

>when overclocked
I meant at stock obviously. The 8400 is weaker than the 8700K at stock both in multicore and single core.

Somes games don't play well with HT, it is possible

>games always scale fps with more cores and threads
It sounds like may be a know nothing troglodyte

It's okay.
Dead platform and no B360 mobos make it meh.

Benching a CPU with games lol
Why Sup Forums why

The 5930K and 6800K are hyperthreaded 6 cores as well though. They're also significantly slower than the 8700K at stock, and all 3 use bingbus so that can't be the difference. Why is the 1800X doing so well when most other benchmarks have Ryzen doing worse than Intel in GTA V? If the game was poorly multthreaded how would a 4GHz turbo 8 core with SMT do so well? Also look at the 7700K and 7740X, they're both the same CPU with the same turbo at stock yet the 7700K is significantly better, despite the 7740X having a higher power draw and higher base clock. Something seems really off about all the results, it looks they they fucked up somewhere.

>dead platform
Can anyone name a not dead platform in the past 10 years? Ryzen 2 was never confirmed for the am4 chipset. So ryzen will get 2 releases (ryzen+) like most intel chipsets have is all we known so far.

If you read op it is talking about gaming, not 7zip and truecrytpt

Except those results have been repeated all across the web, in every single review. The 8400 is incredibly close to the 8700K and matches or beats it in a few select titles. That's almost certainly because of Hyperthreading somehow not meshing well with them, but it's a fact all the same. MUH CLOCKSPEED is becoming less and less relevant.

user, AM3 was alive for, eh, 8 years before Zen dropped?
Intel tearing you a new asshole with a socket a year to keep goyim in fear has nothing to do with AMD.
Besides, Lisa confirmed AM4 will live till DDR5 which is 2020 at very best.

>games don't always scale with higher clock speeds
Are you retarded?

People only care because the hope for Zen2 is one of the biggest reasons to even buy Ryzen. The vast majority of people keep the same CPU for like 4-5 years, upgrade path is a gigantic meme, no one actually cares besised shills.

lol
stop commenting

haha oh wow. look at ""threadripper"" what a fucking scam

It's actually because Wangblows scheduler is retarded and never prioritizes real cores. Disable SMT on 8700k and it will be superior.
user, your new is showing.
Intel killing the very concept of drop-in upgrades does not mean they are irrelevant.

oh shit wrong, it should be TR is a fucking lame ass scam

>Disable SMT on 8700k and it will be superior

Of course, but it'll still cost twice as much, and at that point you might as well buy the 8600K instead.

>MUH CLOCKSPEED is becoming less and less relevant.
It does matter when CPU's have the same number of cores and threads, yet the one with higher clockspeed and higher IPC is losing. If you're going to use PCGamer as an example look at their GTA V benchmark, they got drastically different results. Face it, Anandtech really screwed up.

You can also use the likes of Process Lasso to achieve the same results.
It's not Intel's or AMDs fault Microshits scheduler is ass.

>amd3
>supported
Hahahahahahahahaha

Show me where amd confirmed ryzen 2 will be supported by am4 and i will

What all-core clocks are you getting?

I never said clock speed you illiterate pajeet

I'm not saying Pajeetech didn't screw up, but look how close the 8400 is even there, despite giving up potentially 900MHz of clock speed (depending on whether MCE was enabled or not) and six threads to the 8700K. The desperate struggle for 5GHz is a meme.

Lisa literally said that.
AM4 is living up to DDR5, which is 2020 at best.
Did Intel assfuck you so hard you now fear the drop-in upgrades?

It goes up to 3.8 while in firestrike physics and gta 5 on stock cooler, thats its max

Games that actually tax the CPU quite a bit but almost all single thread, like say World of Warcraft which is an ancient engine, extremely CPU limited and will never really be able to effectively use more than one core... wouldn't the i3 8350K OC'd to the max be the best coffee lake cpu?

Not him, but I get a solid 3.8GHz on mine with all cores loaded heavily. With lighter loads it jumps around between 3.8, 3.9 and 4GHz. Never higher, never lower (except at idle obviously). Tried MCE both on and off and it doesn't behave any differently, sadly. No 4GHz on all cores for now at least.

Hmm, if they actually make better chips and actualy support it i will be impressed. I am just saying this has not happened in god knows how long and i am skeptical given its history.

>Face it, Anandtech really screwed up.
That's just how this generation of CPUs works user - none of them quite hit all-core turbo with normal stock-like cooling.
GTAV doesn't scale well over 4T and the 8400 doesn't have the extra 2 cores, plus hyperthreading to deal with eating into TDP.

Remember that Anandtech tested with MCE off - consider those two facts and the result is explained.

AM3 was only alive for two years, that was the Phenom II one, Phenom's didn't work on it because they needed a DDR3 memory controller. FX CPU's didn't work on them either. AM3+ could use Phenom II CPU's and was "alive" for about 6 years but that was only because AMD stopped releasing CPU's for it. There were only two gens, Bulldozer and Piledriver, and Piledriver was a bit more than a refresh but it wasn't a revolutionary change. For the APU's they had FM2 for Bulldozer and Piledriver, and FM2+ for Steamroller and Excavator. So guess what? If FX would have been popular, Steamroller would have been on a new AM4 socket, instead they just abandoned it.

Still better than Intel where it's 100% gauranteed every 2 years.

They've only used different sockets for APUs because AM3/AM3+ were never made with APUs in mind.
Even then FM1/FM2/FM2+ were a mess.
AM4 is one-fits all socket. Heck they even restricted the lane count on Zeppelin (it's 24 out of 32 lanes available) to not create weird teething issues for APUs.

You're that guy who keep defending fx series in these threads arent you

It appears that the main reason they had to change FM2 to FM2+ was to add PCI-e 3.0. Remember, AM3+ never got PCI-e 3.0, they were stuck on 2.0. That just proves my point that if AMD released Steamroller desktop CPU's it would have been on a new socket. the ONLY reason AM3+ lasted so long was because it was unpopular, AMD just kept releasing refreshes until Ryzen.

So shit-binned 8400's that can't hit 4 GHz confirmed? Tried upgrading your cooling? Checked temps?

Nope.
I've got Ryzen now, but before that I was Intel from E6600 onwards.
Last AMD CPU before this was my Athlon64 3500+ on 939...

And the reason AM4 will last long is because both PCI-E 4.0 and DDR5 are pretty far away.

Few games get much benefit from more than 6 cores, so having 12 or 16 cores won't help you with gaming.

do you consider Ryzen a good chip?

i'm not saying you're the only one wrong. this is Sup Forums as a whole.

>MSI board
Buy one of those, you will need it

Depends what you use it for. Not for my needs. I'd likely take a 1700 over the competition for my work pc though. Does anyone have java maven benchmarks?

What are you even talking about? 4GHz is the single core turbo. Intel's turbo clocks have always been done in stages depending on how many cores are loaded. No 8400 will ever hit 4GHz on all cores unless motherboard manufacturers make MCE work with locked CPUs. Just as no 8700K will ever hit 4.7GHz with all cores loaded with MCE off.

I've had pretty good experiences with msi personally.

How much did intel pay them for this?

How can anyone still find decent games to play in 2017? They're all rubbish.

The Z boards can utilize 3200Mhz ram. Whilst next years will likely be stuck at 2400/2666. This has shown a to be a consistent benefit in gaming. Why would people mock your nice board.. Fools.

And for the record, I'm cooling it with a Noctua NH-U14S. It never gets above the mid-40s even with all cores fully loaded, so it sure isn't thermal throttling. 3.8GHz is just normal operation for it under heavy load, and the same as review samples.

>The i5-8400 has an impressively high 4.0GHz turbo, but the base clock of 2.8GHz might scare some away. Rest easy, as the CPU will actually run at 4.0GHz on one core, 3.9GHz with 2-4 cores loaded, and 3.8GHz with all six cores loaded to capacity—and though it might exceed the nominal 65W TDP, it didn't get overly hot. That means in addition to 50 percent more cores relative to Kaby Lake, you also get the same or higher clockspeeds.

>This has shown a to be a consistent benefit in gaming

With Ryzen, due to the way that the Infinity Fabric works. Faster RAM has minimal impact with Intel systems. TechPowerUp did an article about it just yesterday and there was barely any difference between 2133MHz RAM and 4000MHz RAM.

techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K_Coffee_Lake_Memory_Performance_Benchmark_Analysis/9.html

i7 is garbage.

It also has cool leds, that for some reason was not advertised with the mobo.

Don't be retarded. If Intel had paid them they'd all be recommending the more expensive CPU options.

So you're telling me they did it for free?

>Locked CPU
into the trash it goes

Great, now the bag needs emptying since the whole Ryzen lineup was already in there. You know the rule.

The whole ryzen lineup doesn't use dirty anti consumer Jewish tricks (locked CPUs, socket change one a year, overpriced/shitty chipsets, only x16 PCIE lanes etc.) so it's better by default.

>locked CPUs
That perform better than overclocked Ryzen chips.

>overpriced/shitty chipsets, only x16 PCIE lanes
X370 has the exact same number of PCIe 3.0 lanes for graphics cards as Z370 (16). The X370 chipset doesn't provide any on top of that, but has 8 PCIe 2.0 lanes for peripherals. The CPU provides a further four 3.0 lanes for NVMe SSDs. Meanwhile, the Z370 chipset provides an additional 24 PCIe 3.0 lanes on top of the 16 from the CPU.

Who has the gimped/shitty chipset again? :^)

I'm sure AMD would be absolutely terrified if it wasn't the most obvious paper launch ever. Notice how all they've done is discount the 1600X by $20? Yeah, they won't even need to give a fuck until December.

main culprit

Makes me feel great that i got my 8400 and now supply is gone :)

i have seen may reviews , but i can t explain TECHPOWERUP review . in that review the 1700x performs really well , in overal at 1080p is just 9 % avg in games

i mean 9% slower than the 8700k

2400 or 3000 MHz memory for Coffee Lake i5's?

I dont think it matters but i got the 3000mhz

Also i just did xmp on bios and its been perfect

TPU used a 1080 for their testing, so encountered a lot more GPU bottlenecking. The sites with bigger gaps used a 1080 Ti.

...