Not overclocking

>not overclocking
>light gaming
>bit of video and image editing
>mostly for coding and watching in 4k

Which one to get?

Other urls found in this thread:

pcpartpicker.com/list/QxMQm8
pcpartpicker.com/list/8yXRD8
youtube.com/watch?v=9f5JQrnOwTE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

i5-8400 is faster.

>light gaming
Do you even know how to read?

no reading only shilling

>games
>720p
nani?

That's why it's 720p rather than 4k.

I am very happy with my 1600 but you will have to get the right memory/mobo combination. It is great for running a lot of crap at the same time. With 12 threds you can run VMs for testing code.

these graphs get more and more retard every time someone posts a new

pcpartpicker.com/list/QxMQm8 i5-8400 $493
pcpartpicker.com/list/8yXRD8 R5-1600 $447

One's better at muh gaymes with a 1080ti and 144hz monitor, one's better at multicore performance. Pick your poison.

Not overclocking I would get the r5 1600x and pair it with some 3200mhz ddr4

Real cores are better for the shit you actually wait for these days and I'm not buying into the 144hz meme since I've turned into a casual gamer.

>not overclocking
Just because you don't plan on doing it doesn't mean you should cut your options for no good reason.
That being said, below is my comparison of both, non overclocked, in your usecases:

>light gaming
Difference in this usecase is tiny enough that it doesn't justify paying more for better cpu for this job (i5)
Unless by "light" you mean "infrequent" then it does.

>bit of video and image editing
Difference in this usecase is tiny enough that it doesn't justify paying more for better cpu for this job (R5)

>mostly for coding and watching in 4k
Difference in this usecase is also tiny enough that it doesn't justify paying more for better cpu for this job (R5)
Unless you care about shaving couple seconds off compile times.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is to get the one that's cheaper (consider cpu+mobo+ram price), or gets you a mobo with more features.

get cancer, you mong

>4k
The absolute state of amd
cpu becnhmarks don't count unless you bottleneck the gpu
>look goys it's almost the same fps no matter what cpu

>144hz meme
Are they only worth it for piss-jug gaymers?

>1600 at 3.2 GHz is faster than 1600X at 3.6 GHz
Great chart.
8400 has better single thread (around 10% in best case scenario) but 6 less threads therefore worse multitherad for every application that utilizes 6+ threads. Pic related. Performance is not always linear though. Still 6 extra threads is 6 extra threads. 1600 needs a B350 motherboard which are very cheap and comes with a decent cooler. You can upgrade your processor later since AM4 socket will be compatible with future stuff up to year 2020. With 8400 you will be stuck with LGA1151. 8400 has iGPU, 1600 don't.

Both strong processors and great value. 8400 loses lots of it value if you pair it with expensive Z370 motherboard though.

They're only worth it for eSports wannabes that think they can tell the difference between 100 FPS and 120 FPS.

go back to Sup Forums, cretin

>MUH GAYMES benchmarks are the only ones that matter
>CPUs have no other purpose than MUH GAYMES

Fuck off.

Like you do anything on your pc other than playing video games, and shitposting on a korean comics board.

>720p
2005 called, it wants its resolution back.

I can tell the difference but it's not a difference really worth spending money on

R5 1600

>le professional who uses ryzen
Bullshit, and you know why I know that?

This is a very unfair benchmark. The human eye can't see more than 240p.

Just sum the prices of all the parts you'll need and buy the cheapest one.
You're welcome.

Reminder the OP said
>light gaming
Which I'm pretty sure doesn't include a $500-$1000 GPU and 144hz monitor.

8400 if u cant find one for msrp

>implying I care about small differences in non-interactive tasks
You can just encode videos when you're sleeping.

Who here actually encodes video? What are we, all youtubers now?

The 8400 is faster for gaming. The 1600 is faster for some productivity tasks, but not all. The 1600 needs overclocking to obtain its best performance. The 8400 doesn't. Both are fine on the coolers they come with. Either will be fine for Koding and watching videos.

for compiling and encoding i'd suggest you the Ryzen.

Doesn't it require a $300 AIO though?

Daily reminder.

No it will do fine with the intel cooler. Shit is loud though which is the only real problem. Absolute hist voltage i ever saw my 8400 hit was 1.222v.

No it won't u less you enjoy constant frame stuttering from all the overheating causing thermal throttling.

Intel stock coolers are still garbage. Haven't heard anything bad about AMD Ryzen stock coolers.

But he's considering the 8400 and you've just posted a benchmark showing that it runs way cooler than any Ryzen chip. Quick Rakesh, delete it!

>>not overclocking
Literal retard.
You have absolutely not a single justifiable reason tyo not overclock an unlocked CPU.

Not overclocking is like buying a car and never switching gears because it came like that from a factory.

My 8400 plays perfect in gatv and cemu on stock cooler. Sorry shill. With the fans ramped it doesnt even hit 70c in gta 5.

R7 1700 can be cooled with the stock cooler at 3.7 GHz under prime95.

Provide a single source that suggests the 8400 overheats on the stock cooler. Here's an entire battery of tests carried out using said cooler and saying it's just fine:

youtube.com/watch?v=9f5JQrnOwTE

>he actually bought an 8400
are you literally poor?

Buy the one you can find in stock.

No, he'd have bought Ryzen if he was.

>muh $60 motherboard!!!

>Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 GHz: 84.2%
>Ryzen 5 1600 3.2 GHz: 84.3%
the absolute state of intel shills

>says the poozen owner
Just needed a gaming cpu and the benchmarks speak for themselves

>those fucking minimums

144hz is nice to have even when you're just browsing on desktop

I want a 4k 144hz, but that's probably a few years off still, so I think I'm going to settle on ultrawide 1440 at 200hz for next christmas

why would I have ryzen though
you sound insecure

lmao okay mr.intel product salesman. I'll just pretend the game stuttering I recorded on my games were the devs fault and not my 8400 jumping between 2.8 and 4 GHz despite me locking it to 4 GHz.

And you pretend I won't be uploading this tomorrow.

Yeah. 1440p @ 60hz > 1080p @ 144hz. The only way gaymers could even play at 144hz on 1440p is if they turned down all the settings to be worst than console-tier.

Shill off ahmed

Enjoy your CPoo.

If they're using the game's benchmark tool, the tool is fucked and always reports inaccurate mins.

The only reason they run at 720p is to try and stretch out the differences between CPU's

But it's irrelevant. Nobody actually plays at 720p. You compare at ACTUAL resolutions and the gap shrinks the higher you go until at 1440p and 4k there's virtually no difference.

Which is the basic lesson that we keep telling you gaymur faggots: If you want to get better FPS in your fucking videogames buy a better graphics card, your CPU isn't going to change fuck all until your GPU stops being the bottleneck.

Most people have shittercards that are 4-5 years old. Their CPU is not holding them back.

If you have a 1080ti on the other hand, and you still need an extra 10 fps in your game and are willing to dump +$300 on that, by all means upgrade your CPU.

>8400 OC
>Non-K
>OC
>Non-K
>OC
>OC

That's how I know it's complete bullshit and 8400 is probably complete shit.
>2.8 ghz locked
I bet it fucking sucks big balls in real life

>8700K 3.7 GHz: 196.7 FPS
>8400 2.8 GHz: 198.7 FPS
hey rabbi, whatcha doing?

1. ryzen runs cool to begin with
2. ryzen stock coolers are made by coolermaster

>all benchmarks are fake
Pathetic.

Horrible shilling

overclocking only gives you ~5-15% performance improvement and in exchange you get something much hotter and subsequently louder

For a lot of people, it's extra hassle and the silent and stable operation of their cpu is more important to them than bleeding edge performance

>discount 720p because nobody actually plays at that resolution
>hype up 1440p and 4K as if they're the standard

Nice try, Prisha. The vast majority of people play at 1080p or below, where the CPU is very relevant.

>rationalizing using a gpu bottleneck to benchmark cpus this hard
Stay classy AMD

did you look at that benchmark? 2/3 of the cpu are in fps limit or gpu bottle necked and the other 1/3 is in margin of error

You can overclock the uncore, dumbshit. Both they and PC Gamer did so and saw minor gains. The cores themselves are locked to 3.8GHz under full load and can't be changed in any way.

>8400 again above 8700K
>2.8 GHz vs 3.7 GHz
pls goyim don't buy Ryzen 5 1600, look at this obviously bullshit chart, 8400 is clearly better!

Nah, this is a gpu bottleneck

...

>muh ashes and civ 6
Its well know ryzen is shit at gaming, you arent fooling anyone ahmed

The majority of those users below 1080p are chinks and poos using craptops.

Just look at this shit:
>1366x768
>17.36%

Those aren't desktop users. I don't even think you can buy a 768p desktop monitor even if you were explicitly looking for one.

You're fucking awful at shilling

>poorly-coded piece of shit games lose performance with Hyperthreading
>FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE

It's almost like you poo in loos don't even remember the Ryzen launch, where disabling SMT improved gaming performance in a ton of games.

You made a logical fallacy

>The CPU doesn't matter cause it gets limited by GPU

>Upgrade your GPU
>It then gets limited by CPU

I'm so fucking dumb about CPU's. I have a i5-6600k at 4.4mhz. Should I expect similar results in gaming as if I have another CPU in the same MHz mark, despise those being produced with modern chipsets and technology? How much is the difference in performance between my overclocked CPU vs a i7-7700 at 4.2 or that i7-8700 at 3.7? I haven't seen any of this comparisons charts with a 6600k on it, so I guess I called behind a large gap. Can anyone help me to understand these shit? Thanks anons.

>muh civ 6 and ashes
Hope thats all you play LOL

More like pointing out that differences between CPU's in videogames are miniscule and you're better off spending $100 on a better GPU than you are $100 on a better CPU if all you care about is fucking fps in videogames

>j-just believe me on th-this!!!

I provided cold, hard stats which refuted your point entirely. You're going to need to do better than angrily raging and saying NUH-UH if you want to be taken seriously. Where are your stats? Prove right here, right now that most gamers are gaming at 1440p or 4K.

But 8400 is the same price and clearly better so why purchase the inferior product?

>games that properly utilize multi thread don't matter
kek

Bullshit you clearly never had a Sandy bridge
>Buy a 3.8Ghz turbo CPU
>Overclock it to 4.5Ghz all cores
>At stock voltage
>Cool and quiet under a resonably good cooler

Ryzens do even better.
Latest Intels are shit though, but Ryzen just fucking MUST be overclocked, just like the old Sandy

>Muh 2 games
>it gets better just wait!
Heard it all before

...

Ignore the intel shill in the thread

If you want to improve your performance in gaming, buy a better GPU.

Only consider buying a better CPU for gaming if you've already maxed out your GPU, or if the particular game you're interested in happens to be very CPU hungry and you've got money to burn. (e.g. you play planetside/arma and are willing to dump $$$ just for those)

t. guy who actually plays vidya

Memzen cant even push 144hz at 720p.

That's correct though. Why would those two games matter unless they're all you want to play? Most games are developed by incompetent third world code monkeys and don't use many threads. That's reality, and in reality, Ryzen is a long way off the pace.

8400 wins again

>More like pointing out that differences between CPU's in videogames are miniscule and you're better off spending $100 on a better GPU than you are $100 on a better CPU if all you care about is fucking fps in videogames
In my case I need better ipc, and frequency to gain fps in the games that I like which is why I look for non gpu bottlenecked becnhmarks when choosing my gaming capable cpu. And gpu bottlenecked benchmarks are the dumbest way to benchmark a cpu.
>still rationalizing gpu bottlenecking a cpu benchmark
Just go back to where you came from poojeet.

>t. guy who actually plays vidya
T. the one guy that plays aots, Tomb raider, and doom for over 120hrs combined

Nobody never asked about graphics card retard, he wants to know what the better CPU choice was between i5-8400 and 1600.

>720p
>ultra
what's the point

My last CPU was a 3570K

It couldn't overclock past 3.8ghz without shutting down and it sounded like a fucking vacuum while I did simple things like open firefox.

That was when I realized the intel benchmarks are all cherrypicked bullshit and you don't actually get those results in practice as a regular customer.

fuck intel

Thanks user.

Yea why not just buy the cpu that sucks and cant emulate

It's a benchmark to show which CPU performs better.

Zen+ is coming who's ready to upgrade their future proofed cpu?

>3XXX
That wasn't soldered, after 2XXX raped poor Bulldozer way too hard Intel had no competition and became shit.

the 2XXX were actually as good as people say they are, because they were soldered.
I know because i run a 2500K

horrible bait, i have 1800x, no problems with dolphin

holy shit that is appalling

who gives a fuck about 720p

Yeah in gc games i am sure its finem try cemu which runs on one core

What the fuck are you doing in Sup Forums